|
|
|
|
|
|
by silverquiet
768 days ago
|
|
|
There is some (I think valid) belief that the IPCC is an overly conservative (not in the right-wing sense) political committee who are as concerned with optics as they are science and do not want to sound doomerish themselves (and that makes sense to me). But their best path scenarios assume that we'd be drawing down carbon emissions steeply by now and beginning carbon sequestration programs (which don't seem to be developing fast enough) in the near future. As I said, given that we just experienced the largest ever increase in year-over-year CO2 levels, it seems we are still going in the opposite direction. Even the IPCC has said that the consequences of exceeding 1.5C temperature anomaly are dire, and we are clearly going to do that. And so they move the goalpost to 2C (again, I can't fault them for that). I've followed the science rather closely and what becomes clear is that we just can't understand the climate system in its vast complexity; it's quite possible that there are dragons lurking that could cause a cascade of feedback loops that end very badly for humanity. I suppose I'm just wired differently than most; it seems that others believe that because there is ambiguity in projections, they can just assume that all will work out. Many seem to believe that god or some force will watch out and protect them. I wish I had this belief as well. |
|
|
You do realize that you've taken exact pages out of the so-called denier playbook (I truly hate that phrase and all of its debate-censorious religious undertones, even though I don't doubt climate change myself) albeit in the other direction, while also criticizing those who practice that very same thing as doubters of climate change worries.